HC Deb 06 April 1932 vol 264 cc199-213
Mr. ATTLEE

I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out from the word "the" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"following

Cereal year ending Price per hundredweight.
July 1933 - Ten shillings.
July 1934 - Nine shillings and eightpence.
July 1935 - Nine shillings and fourpence.
July 1936 - Nine shillings.
July 1937 - Eight shillings and eight-pence."

This Amendment contains the same principle as the Amendment which was moved on a previous occasion by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen), which was supported by the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor). The hon. and gallant Member said that they hoped for great things from his Amendment, and the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton, in supporting that proposal, was very emphatic, and said that there were a number of bright young Conservatives who would follow her into the Lobby. Unfortunately, the bright young Conservative who moved the Amendment did not follow the Noble Lady into the Lobby, and I do not know why. Perhaps the Noble Lady over-estimated the market in reference to those bright young Conservatives, because there was not such a great supply as she imagined.

The Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead was rather more drastic than the one I am putting forward. I am proposing that the price per cwt. in July, 1933, shall be 10s.; in 1934, 9s. 8d.; 1935, 9s. 4d.; 1936, 9s.; and 1937, 8s. 8d. We have been assured already that this Bill is a purely temporary one. The idea of bringing it definitely to an end after five years has been rejected, but there is still the question whether we cannot avoid the danger of establishing what the Noble Lady called a permanent dole. I would like to recall to the Minister these rather drastic words of the Noble Lady: This subsidy, which we now call a deficiency payment, is really, to be honest, a dole. I believe in plain words when you come to deal with plain facts. We want to be certain that it is a temporary dole. None of us would dispute that there is need for a temporary dole for the wheat farmers. We do not grudge it in the least."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1932; cols. 337–8, Vol. 263.]

I am inclined to agree that something temporary must be done for the wheat farmer, but it is a question of principle whether there should be a fixed rate of subsidy continuing year after year, or whether this House should not express in the Bill a definite intention that this is to be merely a temporary subsidy to tide over a transition in agricultural methods. The Minister will probably reply that he has already made provision for a review, but I would point out that that is not a review of the whole scheme, but a review of the standard price, to determine whether it should go up or down. We hold that the right plan for agriculture is a comprehensive plan for a turn-over from wheat cultivation. We do not deny that some wheat should be grown, but we do not believe that, under present conditions of wheat production in the world, wheat can ever be a major crop in this country, and we do not believe that the wheat area should be extended. According to information that I have had from those who know fairly well, there is a tendency to increase it, and there seems to be a tendency to do so in this Bill, for, with a subsidy like this, there must be a tendency for farmers to grow a crop as to which there is certainty. We believe that, as regards the arable counties, the question should be dealt with on broad lines, and that, while we agree that some temporary assistance should be given to wheat growing during the change-over, it should be a condition that the change-over does take place.

The danger about this Measure is that it imposes no conditions whatever, but amounts to a mere dole, as the Noble Lady said. The present Government are very strong on attaching conditions to the dole when it is given to the worker, but they attach no conditions when it is given to the farmer. It has a terrible effect on the character of the workers and on their working powers unless there is a means test and every other kind of test, but to this dole no conditions whatever are attached, and the Minister has steadily rejected all attempts to put in tests of any kind. We think that the farmer should have definite notice that this is not a fixed dole, but is going to be on a steadily descending scale. We have been told by hon. Members on the other side that the profits of farming vary very much between farmer and farmer, but it is not suggested by anyone who is seriously interested in agriculture that we should endeavour to promote the growing of wheat on unsuitable land, or by those who are not capable of producing it to advantage. It is admitted that, with the opportunities given in this Bill, some farmers will do very well. Indeed, it has been shown by the Minister of Agriculture that the profits will not only be sufficient for the farmer—who, as we are told, is always very generous to the agricultural labourer—but that there will also be a surplus for the landlord. We have also been told to-day about the drifting of agricultural workers into the towns, and about the breaking down of hedges in order to go in for large-scale mechanisation. That may be the right way of doing it, and it may be right to encourage it, but it is not right to set up permanently in this country an industry which has to depend on a subsidy, an industry carried on by a huge class of farmers who will, in effect, be living on a permanent dole.

We suggest that the only way to make this Bill at all dynamic is to say that this assistance is given for a special purpose, that the amount will be a declining one, and that it will, therefore, be up to every farmer to reconsider whether it is worth his while to continue growing wheat, or whether he will take advantage of this gift at the expense of the consumers to reorganise his agriculture. If that be not done, then, at the end of five years, or at whatever time the review may be made, the position will be just as bad as it is to-day. We have heard speeches, from those who claim to represent farmers, complaining that they are not getting nearly enough, while any sort of payment by the farmer is complained of bitterly. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and others remind me very much of a picture which appeared in "Punch" some years ago, of two small children on a hot summer day who were begging—and shivering. When they were asked why they shivered, they said: "That is the only way we have been taught to beg." I notice that kind of attitude on the part of certain farmers' representatives here. I hope that they are not fair representatives of the farmers, and I do not think that they do represent fairly the more progressive section, but, unless this Amendment is accepted, and the principle of it embodied in the Bill, the Bill will merely be one to provide a dole to send the farmers to sleep and prevent any progress, and, when the time for review comes, the position will be found to be much the same as it is to-day. We shall still have an unprogressive agricultural industry, and shall merely have put the burden of another vested interest on the backs of the consumers.

Mr. DAVID MASON

I congratulate the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on his witty speech in moving this Amendment. It seems to me to be a most sensible Amendment, and I hope that it will be received sympathetically both by the Government and by hon. Members generally, and particularly by the followers of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who was so much in favour of a graduated scale. The principle which the Noble Lady laid down, and which was so ably supported by the hon. Member for Limehouse, is surely in accordance with good farming. We know that there are differences of opinion as to whether an excessive production of wheat is advisable in this country, but the pro- posal of this Amendment is on the same lines as the assistance which a banker gives to a trader. If it be an advantage to grow wheat, it will be demonstrated by a gradual reduction of the wheat subsidy, while if, on the other hand, it is a disadvantage, the community will benefit by the reduction of the subsidy. That is in accordance with common sense, sound finance, and justice to the agricultural community. Many farmers who support this permanent dole of 10s. per cwt. will agree that it may divert the energies of farmers who would otherwise grow barley or other cereals to an excessive production of wheat, and I hope that this proposal that, while the State recognises that there is distress, and is, very properly, willing to help agriculture, the subsidy should be a gradually declining one, will meet with sympathy from the representatives of the Government. I hope that the Government will be prepared to make some concession, or to meet the hon. Member in some way, and that the suggestion that the principle of gradually reducing the subsidy is in accordance with justice to agriculture will be supported, if necessary, in the Division Lobby.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN

It was not my intention to intervene in this Debate, but, after certain flattering remarks that have been made about me, I feel that I ought to explain the attitude that I take towards this Amendment. I oppose it for the same reason that I stated in proposing the previous Amendment. I pointed out that it was not adequately worded, and that it should have been combined with a scheme to assist the other branches of agriculture—animal husbandry and so on. This Amendment makes no attempt to assist any other branch of agriculture. The attitude of those who support it is merely one of destroying any assistance to the wheat grower. The annual reduction proposed would exclude those farmers whose crop rotation does not happen to fall within the 10s. year. The Minister's answer to my Amendment was that the whole matter was coming up for review in three years, and, although the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) pointed out that that was a review of price only, surely the price is the keynote of the whole situation; if the price is to be reviewed in three years, it can be put at such a figure that the matter will be of consequence or of no consequence to the farmer as the case may be. With that review in three year's time, I am content, and, therefore, I oppose this Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD

I am pleased to listen to any hon. Member who makes explanations in this House. I only wish that explanations had been forthcoming a little more liberally from the Front Bench on many points in connection with this Bill. But the hon. and gallant Member must be aware that the other aspects of agriculture to which he referred could not be included in this Wheat Bill. It has been stated that the object of the Bill is to help farmers to help themselves. Everyone will agree that that is a very desirable object, but I am rather of opinion, from the discussions which have taken place and the statements which have been made, that farmers will be at a loss to understand how they are going to be helped through the medium of this Bill. I cannot forget the details given by the Oxford Research Institute, which displayed the possibilities of farming when conducted on scientific lines. If the incentive that is being given in the form of the figures referred to in the Amendment is subject to continual reduction for the years indicated, that will meet the desire of giving an incentive to the farmers, and they will realise that from time to time they will have a little less than they previously had, and will take advantage of the higher figure to make themselves more competent in producing wheat. That is all that they are entitled to receive and, therefore, I support the Amendment.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton)

As has been said by more than one Member, this question, though in a slightly different form, was fully discussed in Committee and, therefore, I propose to say only a word or two. It will be obvious that the Amendment would entirely alter, or indeed destroy, the method adopted by the Government, which is that there should be three years' security for the farmers, and that the situation should then be reviewed. The advantage of that system is so obvious that it really needs no explanation or elaboration. Keeping before one all the assumptions present in the speeches of the supporters of the Amendment, it is clear that, whether you regard the Bill as giving a breathing-space to the farmer for changing where necessary the type of farming on which he is engaged, or whether you are tiding him over a particularly difficult period, you achieve the result aimed at far better by giving him three years and a certain fixed payment rather than a payment which is at its maximum only for one year and is then reduced by the somewhat sinister sum of 4d. I cannot but think that, even if the House were approaching the question for the first time, or if anyone was engaged in framing a Bill himself, he would prefer the method the Government have adopted of three years in which the farmers know where they are, to this purely illusory assistance which is at its maximum only for one year and then reduces itself automatically.

Take, for instance, the view which has been expressed that a large profit is going to be made by the farmer from this subsidy. If that were true, surely it would be much better that the assistance, if it was going to be so valuable, should be for at least three years, so that a progressively-minded farmer would be able to save some capital in order to help him in the transference to another method of farming. That would seem in itself an argument in favour of having a fixed amount for the next three years. I think it is unnecessary, in view of the full discussion that there has been in Committee, to elaborate the matter further. When the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. M. Mason) asked us to make some concession, I do not think he can have hoped for a favourable reply, because any concession leading to the immediate introduction of a sliding-scale would cut absolutely and destructively across the principle adopted by the Government of security for three years and then complete revision.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his loyalty to his chief, though it is to be regretted that he seems to have thrown overboard the Minister of Agriculture. The Secretary for Scotland talked about this being a purely temporary Measure, and the hon. Gentleman entirely agrees with him.

Mr. SKELTON

If the hon. Gentleman will read my remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT, there is absolutely nothing on which such an argument could be based. I confined myself to the issue of an immediate sliding scale or revision at the end of three years. That is not necessarily abolition.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Will the hon. Gentleman inform us whether he is a supporter of a permanent scheme or a temporary one?

Mr. SKELTON

That would be out of order.

Mr. WILLIAMS

The hon. Gentleman prefers three years' security, and he wants the price to be so large that ample savings can be set on one side, so that at the end of the three years there may be a change over to newer methods. That is the whole point of the Opposition. You are not subsidising just that section of farmers who really need it most. You are giving to rich and poor alike. You do not discriminate between good, indifferent and bad land. It is the same subsidy all along the line. Not only is the subsidy equitable as between all kinds of land in all counties, but you preserve it for the period of three years before even you start to think of the effect of it, and only then do you start to think about the effect of the subsidy from the point of view of whether it is going to be increased or decreased. The consumer is not even to be considered. We suggest that it would have been far better, if a subsidy is to be given, that it should be for a limited period on a sliding scale basis. We have had the beet-sugar subsidy. We have all been the recipients of documentary evidence that goes to show that either it has been a waste of money or that it has not, according to the view one takes of the literature one has read. It is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to tell us that at the end of three years a committee will be set up which will be looking into the economics of the industry. That seems to me to be the worst possible policy that any Government could pursue. Any decision that is reached will be reached upon the basis of political pressure. It would be far better, if you wish to be generous, to have the subsidy on a reducing scale, which would be the finest inspiration to the wheat farmer to do what is likely to be best for himself and best for the industry and the country at the end of that time.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved a similar Amendment in Committee has given a very curious excuse for withdrawing it. He suggested that he did so because the Minister promised that something was going to be done for other agricultural commodities. Let us see exactly what he said when he moved the Amendment. The first object of the Amendment is to make the Bill a temporary and not a permanent one. We had an assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland when he replied to the Debate on Second Reading, but I have not yet seen anything definite in the Bill to say that it is a temporary Measure. We have admissions from some of the representatives of the farmers that the Bill is a lottery, and if it is going to be a lottery, as was suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Peterborough (Lord Burghley), I hope it will be a lottery for a short period. Now he tells us that he had in mind some other agricultural commodity than wheat. He proceeded to say:— I want to see temporary assistance given to the farmer during this time of severe depression, but I do not want him to get into the habit of relying upon a high price obtained by law from the consumer. I want this to be a temporary arrangement to put the farmer on his own feet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1932; col. 320, Vol. 263.] Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman really mean that? If so, I do not see how he can avoid supporting this Amendment. He argued in favour of a sliding

Division No. 139.] AYES. [6.46 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Broadbent, Colonel John Craven-Ellis, William
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Crooke, J. Smedley
Ainsworth, Lieut-Colonel Charles Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y) Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Albery, Irving James Browne, Captain A. C. Crossley, A. C.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Burghley, Lord Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Applin, Lieut.-Cot. Reginald V. K. Burnett, John George Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Dawson, Sir Philip
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Carver, Major William H. Denman, Hon. R. D.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Castle Stewart, Earl Denville, Alfred
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Cautley, Sir Henry S. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Dickie, John P.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Doran, Edward
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Chalmers, John Rutherford Drewe, Cedric
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) Duckworth, George A. V.
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Chotzner, Alfred James Duggan, Hubert John
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Clarry, Reginald George Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Clayton, Dr. George C. Eady, George H.
Blindell, James Colville, John Eden, Robert Anthony
Borodale, Viscount. Conant, R. J. E. Elmley, Viscount
Bossom, A. C. Cooke, Douglas Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Cooper, A. Duff Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Boyce, H. Leslie Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Cranborne, Viscount Everard, W. Lindsay

scale but, for some curious reason for which no explanation was given, he consented to withdraw his Amendment and voted with the Government. We feel that, if the subsidy must be given, it is far better that an amount should be fixed which is fair and equitable, and that the distribution should be on such a basis that the money would find its way into those places where it is most necessary and that it should be on the sliding scale basis. We know what the policy will be in three years' time. The Farmers' Union, in the future as in the past, will make their demands, and they usually get a very reasonable response. The agricultural party has been spoken of as the pampered darlings of the Tory party. We prefer that the decision should be taken not three years' hence but to-day, in the light of day, without any jiggery-pokery or political pressure from outside. If the Government adopted that policy, they would be saved from themselves in the years that lie ahead, and they would in no way adversely affect the wheat producer. For these reasons, we shall persist in demanding that the subsidy is paid on a sliding-scale basis if it is to be paid at all. The last we can do is to point out what we regard as the wisest thing for the Government, the farmers and the nation.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 63.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Fox, Sir Gifford Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Fraser, Captain Ian MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Scone, Lord
Fuller, Captain A. G. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ganzoni, Sir John McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman McKie, John Hamilton Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Gledhill, Gilbert Macmillan, Maurice Harold Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Glossop, C. W. H. Magnay, Thomas Skelton, Archibald Noel
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Marsden, Commander Arthur Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Gower, Sir Robert Martin, Thomas B. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Soper, Richard
Granville, Edgar Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Grimston, R. V. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Guy, J. C. Morrison Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Stones, James
Hales, Harold K. Moreing, Adrian C. Storey, Samuel
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Stourton, Hon. John J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Strauss, Edward A.
Hanbury, Cecil Muirhead, Major A. J. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hanley, Dennis A. Munro, Patrick Stuart, Lord C. Crichton
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n] Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Sutcliffe, Harold
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Tate, Mavis Constance
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) North, Captain Edward T. Templeton, William P.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Nunn, William Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Hepworth, Joseph Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Thompson, Luke
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Palmer, Francis Noel Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) Patrick, Colin M. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Pearson, William G. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hornby, Frank Peat, Charles U. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Horsbrugh, Florence Penny, Sir George Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Howard, Tom Forrest Peters, Dr. Sidney John Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Petherick, M Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Wayland, Sir William A.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Wells, Sydney Richard
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Ramsbotham, Herwald Weymouth, Viscount
Kerr, Hamilton W. Ramsden, E. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Kimball, Lawrence Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Whyte, Jardine Bell
Kirkpatrick, William M, Reid, William Allan (Derby) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Knight, Helford Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Robinson, John Roland Wise, Alfred R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Ropner, Colonel L. Withers, Sir John James
Law, Sir Alfred Rosbotham, S. T. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Ross, Ronald D. Womersley, Walter James
Leckle, J. A. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Leech, Dr. J. W. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Lees Jones, John Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Wragg, Herbert
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Runge, Norah Cecil Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Levy, Thomas Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Liddall, Walter S. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lindsay, Noel Ker Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Captain Austin Hudson and Lord
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Rutherford, Sir John Hugo Erskine.
Lloyd, Geoffrey Salmon, Major Isldore
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Attlee, Clement Richard George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Kirkwood, David
Batey, Joseph Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Lawson, John James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) Leonard, William
Buchanan, George Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Logan, David Gilbert
Cape, Thomas Grundy, Thomas W. Lunn, William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) McEntee, Valentine L.
Cove, William G. Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) McGovern, John
Cripps, Sir Stafford Harris, Sir Percy Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Daggar, George Hicks, Ernest George Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Hirst, George Henry Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Holdsworth, Herbert Maxton, James
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross) Janner, Barnett Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Edwards, Charles Jenkins, Sir William Owen, Major Goronwy
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) John, William Parkinson, John Allen
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pickering, Ernest H.
Price, Gabriel Wallhead, Richard C. Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Salter, Dr. Alfred Williams, David (Swansea, East) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Thorne, William James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.
Tinker, John Joseph Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Dr. SALTER

I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out the words "seven and a half," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."

The Amendment which I propose is to be read with the succeeding Amendment standing in my name, in page 6, line 6, after the word "will," to insert the words "represent wastage or." When this particular Clause was being considered in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that he was somewhat impressed by the arguments that were adduced, and he made the following statement in the course of the discussion: I do not think we are very far apart. As I understand it, we are all alive to the fact that we must make an allowance for wastage. What we demur to is being tied down definitely to 2½ per cent. I am quite willing to look into it between now and Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1932; col. 407, Vol. 263.] The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to intimate, that he cannot accept the Amendment, but he has sent a communication which considerably clarifies the whole position, and, if he will be good enough to repeat to the House what he has said in writing, we shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do that in order that it may be placed on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. TINKER

I beg to second the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)

On behalf of the Minister, I am quite prepared to give here the statement which was given to the hon. Gentleman in the letter which was written to him from the Ministry in regard to this matter. The proposal in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is that in addition to the 7½ per cent. which will be taken into account for seed, another fixed rate of 2½ per cent. shall be taken into account for wastage, making 10 per cent. altogether. I cannot do better than give to the House the substance of the letter sent to the hon. Member, which, if not entirely, mainly affects the point. It would be best to explain to the Com-

mittee the nature of the calculations that the Minister will have to make in arriving at the anticipated supply, which is, after all, the governing matter in this connection. Early in August this year he will have to make, on the basis of the growers' returns of the acreage of wheat, which they will have to send to the Wheat Commission, and on the basis of the estimates of yield per acre made by the official crop reporters of the Ministry, a preliminary estimate of the total wheat crop of the harvest. The official crop reporter's estimate of the yield per acre is always made in a form which relates to the total yield of wheat, including the tail corn. In making the calculations for the purpose of working this Bill the Minister has to arrive at another figure, namely, the quantity of millable wheat which will possibly be marketed by the growers. Therefore, the Minister must deduct from this preliminary estimate formed from the returns of acreage by the growers and from the estimate of crop yield tail corn, damaged corn, and wastage in that part of the crop which is likely to be kept in stack for several months after the harvest before it is threshed. The third factor is, of course, mainly due to the fact that over a series of years there are statistics available which show that either from rats or through other deterioration of a certain amount of wheat kept in stacks in winter months there is a certain percentage lost or wasted. That will be taken into account in making the calculations of the anticipated supply.

Accordingly, this Amendment, if it were carried, would mean that that rate of wastage would have to be fixed at 2½ per cent., which may not be the correct figure. It may be more or it may be less according to conditions or according to the reports received by the Minister of Agriculture. In addition, if it were carried, it would, construing it with the other terms and Clauses of the Bill, be making a calculation of wastage twice over. Accordingly, I hope that this explanation will clear up why on investigation it was found inappropriate for the Minister to accept the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), and I hope that the explanation I have given will have publicity outside so that farmers may know exactly where they are.

Amendment negatived.